[lsb-discuss] Re: [lsb-futures] Re: [Lsb-desktop] Re: KDE representation

Matt Taggart taggart at carmen.fc.hp.com
Wed Aug 17 17:06:48 PDT 2005


Philippe Fremy writes...

> The guideline should be that either the library is installed in the 
> system and it should be LSB compliant, or it is installed in a private 
> area and it does not mess up the system.

That is the guideline. In addition, in order to guarantee it's going to 
work that library installed in the private area can only use things in the 
LSB or other private things (which have the same requirement, recurse).

> Theorically very nice. Now, let's take the /usr/lib of any distro and 
> see how many of the libraries there are LSB compliant.

Quite a few. In some cases the distro's libs in /usr/lib aren't completely 
compliant and they need to replace the LSB linker ( /lib/ld-lsb.so.# ) with 
a special linker that redirects calls to the non-compliant libs to a 
different location.

> Can you reasonably ask a 
> distribution to remove all the non confirming lib from the standard path ?

LSB compliance does not require removing non-LSB libs from the standard 
path. LSB compliant applications can't use them, so it doesn't matter if 
they are in the path.

> So, I see a problem with this theorical approach, but no solution.

Your problem doesn't exist.

-- 
Matt Taggart        Open Source & Linux Organization R&D
taggart at fc.hp.com   Hewlett-Packard






More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list